You are talking about it as if it was some kind of religion, and going some great length avoiding specifics. Why?
According to the article, Patrick uses GPL enforcement to sell proprietary license exceptions. FSF is a organization that was founded to stop proprietary licenses in software. SFC was created by the previous board members of FSF.
> I'm not sure what the SFCs goal here
SFCs own stated mission is to help promote, improve, develop, and defend Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects [see website]. Their goal with GPL enforcement should thus be to do the above statement. As such, we can derive that they do not think that selling proprietary license exceptions through litigation is going to help netfilter, and one might also suspect that they consider such activity to be harmful. You can agree or disagree with their assessment, but then please make a argument why you think they are wrong.
"gang up" on Patrick and pressure him into accepting their "principles" is just name calling, and is not refuting any argument that they make. Nor is it a counterargument. (see Graham's hierarchy of disagreement)
In any conflict, that FSF is or may possibly in the future be party to, all other right holders lose their rights and they have to accept whatever the FSF manages to achieve.
That's particularly grating in that the FSF's main goals are not exactly aligned with everyone else's.
Why someone would buy that is beyond me, since they would still be non-compliant, but hey, you can try!
SFC is doing basically the same thing: They settle without demanding any money, just future compliance, and the individual developer is left in the rain.
According to the article, Patrick uses GPL enforcement to sell proprietary license exceptions. FSF is a organization that was founded to stop proprietary licenses in software. SFC was created by the previous board members of FSF.
> I'm not sure what the SFCs goal here
SFCs own stated mission is to help promote, improve, develop, and defend Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects [see website]. Their goal with GPL enforcement should thus be to do the above statement. As such, we can derive that they do not think that selling proprietary license exceptions through litigation is going to help netfilter, and one might also suspect that they consider such activity to be harmful. You can agree or disagree with their assessment, but then please make a argument why you think they are wrong.
"gang up" on Patrick and pressure him into accepting their "principles" is just name calling, and is not refuting any argument that they make. Nor is it a counterargument. (see Graham's hierarchy of disagreement)